Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

[Felix Miata]

On 2009/08/13 16:36 (GMT+1200) Richard Mason composed:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Felix Miata wrote

>>On 2009/08/13 10:59 (GMT+1200) Richard Mason composed:

>>> ... On paper inches are physical inches. On a screen inches are
>>> logical inches. Logical inches and physical inches are not the same
>>> thing as I explain here:
>>> http://www.emdpi.com/screendpi.html

>>Your second and third sentences need a qualifier. Logical inches need not be
>>different in size from physical inches.

> Indeed, but I never said they had to be.

Actually in a manner you did. You wrote "are" with no qualification (e.g.
"usually"). That's like writing always (or never).

> Windows allows one to manually
> change the screen dpi (pixels in a logical inch) so that on a particular 
> monitor a logical inch matches a physical inch but why, generally, would 
> anyone want to do that?

Why not? Why wouldn't some people want to hold up the printout next to the
display and see everything match?

> ... the 
> distance and orientation one reads text on paper is quite different to 
> that at which one reads text a screen.

I don't think that's true for laptop users using their laptops in their laps.
Most laptop screens are smaller than most modern desktop screens, have higher
DPI making everything smaller, which induces people to position them closer
than desktop displays. Laptops have been outselling desktops for several
years, so it may be that more people have their screens close to the same
reading distance as paper as don't.

>>Non-broken computer displays have
>>been reporting both size and resolution for quite some time.[1]

> Just because something is reported you can't assume it's accurate!

Did you not notice or understand the meaning of "Non-broken"? If it's
reporting incorrectly, it's broken (or defective).

> http://www.emdpi.com/screenppi.html.
> ...A programmer can't rely on Windows to get actual screen 
> dimensions...

True, but not everyone uses Windows.

> But you don't _need_ to draw lengths on a screen so that they match 
> those on a ruler.

Most probably don't need it, but some if not most, given knowledge that it's
possible, how to fix it, and what the drawbacks might be, would opt for 
accuracy.

>> That most
>>computer desktop environments do not use that information to adjust logical
>>inches to equal physical inches does not mean it is not possible.

> Seeing as in Windows there is no way, programmatically, of:
> 1. Both reliably and accurately getting the screen size for any type of 
> monitor.

There is, if not using Windows, Mac, or broken equipment.

> 2. Adjusting the screen dpi.

If using Linux, it can be pretty simple to fix for the sysadmin if the system
installation program manages to muck it up or the display lies or fails to
communicate to the OS.

Still, for purposes of web design, it shouldn't matter if designing in the
resolution independence that results in better accessibility and usability.
OTOH, in a web design environment, it might be a good idea to get it as
accurate as practical, in order to better judge middle ground of the range of
user environments.
-- 
How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose
understanding rather than silver. Proverbs 16:16 NKJV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

[Richard Mason]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Felix Miata wrote

>On 2009/08/13 10:59 (GMT+1200) Richard Mason composed:
>
>> ... On paper inches are physical inches. On a screen inches are
>> logical inches. Logical inches and physical inches are not the same
>> thing as I explain here:
>> http://www.emdpi.com/screendpi.html
>
>Your second and third sentences need a qualifier. Logical inches need not be
>different in size from physical inches.

Indeed, but I never said they had to be. Windows allows one to manually 
change the screen dpi (pixels in a logical inch) so that on a particular 
monitor a logical inch matches a physical inch but why, generally, would 
anyone want to do that? A monitor is not a sheet of paper and the 
distance and orientation one reads text on paper is quite different to 
that at which one reads text a screen.

>Non-broken computer displays have
>been reporting both size and resolution for quite some time.[1]
Just because something is reported you can't assume it's accurate!
http://www.emdpi.com/screenppi.html.
To quote myself:
  "The screen width values that Windows has retrieved for the LCD screens 
are near enough to those obtained by measuring screens with a ruler, but 
are way out for the CRT and Laptop screens. You can see there's a 
problem. A programmer can't rely on Windows to get actual screen 
dimensions, and if you don't know the real physical size of the screen 
then you can't draw physical lengths on the screen that match those on a 
ruler."

But you don't _need_ to draw lengths on a screen so that they match 
those on a ruler.

> That most
>computer desktop environments do not use that information to adjust logical
>inches to equal physical inches does not mean it is not possible.
Seeing as in Windows there is no way, programmatically, of:
1. Both reliably and accurately getting the screen size for any type of 
monitor.
2. Adjusting the screen dpi.
Then I would say it is not possible. If anyone knows differently then I 
would be happy to see the data.

-- 
Richard Mason
http://www.emdpi.com
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Fix for chrome browser

[Tim Snadden]

On 13/08/2009, at 3:02 PM, bharani kumar wrote:

> I find some one using
>
> height:120px; !important for IE fix
>
>
> Am used this fix , but no positive output ,
>
> Can u tell me , its really works or not


Try putting !important before the semi-colon.

I would suggest that 'important' should be used as a last resort and  
that if you find yourself using it that it's a good sign that you need  
to have a rethink about how the page is being styled and the  
specificity of your selectors.



__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Fix for chrome browser

[bharani kumar]

I find some one using

height:120px; !important for IE fix


Am used this fix , but no positive output ,

Can u tell me , its really works or not
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Christian Montoya wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:07 AM, bharani
> kumar wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > This is general question ,
> >
> > For IE , if we want to write an fix means , then we use something like
> > _height:200px;
> >
> > For chrome , how to write an fix , Can some one tell with few example ,
> >
> > Also for FF , IE-8 ,
>
> height:200px;
>
> Chrome, FF, IE-8 don't need to be "fixed" because their CSS2 support
> is very good.
>
> --
> --
> Christian Montoya
> mappdev.com :: christianmontoya.net
>



-- 
Regards
B.S.Bharanikumar
http://php-mysql-jquery.blogspot.com/
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] first-child and + selector issues

[Tim Snadden]

On 13/08/2009, at 9:24 AM, Vincent Pollard wrote:

> I'm having a lot of trouble getting a couple of lines of css to work  
> in
> IE8.
>
> It works in Firefox but not IE8. Any ideas why? Is it the doctype? IE8
> bug? Some error I've overlooked?
>
>
>
> Here's the site: http://tinyurl.com/lo468u 
>
>
>
> Here's the css for this:
>
>
>
> ..boxes:first-child {
>
>margin-left: 0; /* removes the left-margin from the
> first orange box at the bottom of the page
>
>
>
> div.colL img + .newsItem {
>
>border: none;  /* removes the border from the first  
> news
> item, on the right of the loudhailer image */
>
> }

The reason is that the document is being rendered in quirks mode. The  
doctype in this document is actually a comment. Use the IE developer  
tools (F12) and look. It says Browser Mode: IE8, Document Mode: Quirks  
mode. You can force it into standards mode by changing the document  
mode in the developer tools, but you will eventually need to get the  
doctype fixed.
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

[Felix Miata]

On 2009/08/13 10:59 (GMT+1200) Richard Mason composed:

> ... On paper inches are physical inches. On a screen inches are 
> logical inches. Logical inches and physical inches are not the same 
> thing as I explain here:
> http://www.emdpi.com/screendpi.html

Your second and third sentences need a qualifier. Logical inches need not be
different in size from physical inches. Non-broken computer displays have
been reporting both size and resolution for quite some time.[1] That most
computer desktop environments do not use that information to adjust logical
inches to equal physical inches does not mean it is not possible. Windows is
not the only operating system. Neither is Mac. On many Linux desktops for
several years running on competent equipment, logical inches have, within a
small rounding error, been equal to physical inches.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDID
-- 
How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose
understanding rather than silver. Proverbs 16:16 NKJV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

[Richard Mason]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Rob Emenecker wrote

>> >My question to you is why  a box of 100px equals a inch
>> measured by a
>> >ruler and not what I expected 96px?
>> >
>> Don't understand the statement.
>
>I'll take a stab at this one...
>
I didn't make clear what I meant when I said "I don't understand the 
statement". I was querying why he would expect a 100px box to be 96px.

>If I have my Win OS set to 96 dpi (that is DOTS = PIXELS; DOTS <> POINTS) on
>a 1920x1200 monitor the size of a ONE INCH object will be different if that
>1920x1200 monitor is a 21", 24", on 15" laptop monitor.

Of course. On paper inches are physical inches. On a screen inches are 
logical inches. Logical inches and physical inches are not the same 
thing as I explain here:
http://www.emdpi.com/screendpi.html

-- 
Richard Mason
http://www.emdpi.com
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] first-child and + selector issues

[Vincent Pollard]

I'm having a lot of trouble getting a couple of lines of css to work in
IE8. 

It works in Firefox but not IE8. Any ideas why? Is it the doctype? IE8
bug? Some error I've overlooked?

 

Here's the site: http://tinyurl.com/lo468u  

 

Here's the css for this:

 

..boxes:first-child {

margin-left: 0; /* removes the left-margin from the
first orange box at the bottom of the page */

}

 

div.colL img + .newsItem {

border: none;  /* removes the border from the first news
item, on the right of the loudhailer image */

}

 

I know there are lots of validation errors with the XHTML -
unfortunately I have no access to the code right now but I'm working on
it! The css does validate.

Regards,

Vince

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Fix for chrome browser

[David Hucklesby]

divya manian wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:07 AM, bharani 
> kumar wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> This is general question ,
>> 
>> For IE , if we want to write an fix means , then we use something 
>> like _height:200px;
>> 
>> For chrome , how to write an fix , Can some one tell with few 
>> example ,
>> 
>> Also for FF , IE-8 ,
> 
> http://www.catswhocode.com/blog/15-techniques-and-tools-for-cross-browser-css-coding
> 
> 
> __

> 
Those hacks look dangerously out of date. The ones I tried out don't
work - or, rather, applied to most other browsers than the one targeted.

Cordially,
David
--
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

[Rob Emenecker]

> >My question to you is why  a box of 100px equals a inch 
> measured by a 
> >ruler and not what I expected 96px?
> >
> Don't understand the statement.

I'll take a stab at this one... 

PPI/DPI is not an accurate measure of PHYSICAL dimensions on a monitor due
to the PHYSICAL size of the monitor. (I recall a message from a previous
poster conveyed this.) 

If I have my Win OS set to 96 dpi (that is DOTS = PIXELS; DOTS <> POINTS) on
a 1920x1200 monitor the size of a ONE INCH object will be different if that
1920x1200 monitor is a 21", 24", on 15" laptop monitor. I know this to be a
fact because I run my laptop at 1920x1200 and the diagonal measure is
approx. 15.4". I have the same resolution set on my 24" desktop monitor,
because that monitor is approx. 55% larger in  size.

On Windows, if you need it to be remotely accurate in representing PHYSICAL
SIZE, the *best case* is to use the CUSTOM DPI setting and slap a ruler up
to your monitor. But do this with a word of caution... many applications
dialog boxes, menus, and other elements that contain text, were laid out
based on the default 96 DPI. They start "breaking" once you muck with it
(which is a whole different rant in and of itself.)

...Rob


Rob Emenecker @ Hairy Dog Digital
www.hairydogdigital.com
 
Please note: Return e-mail messages are only accepted from discussion groups
that this e-mail address subscribes to. All other messages are automatically
deleted.
 

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Fix for chrome browser

[divya manian]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:07 AM, bharani
kumar wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is general question ,
>
> For IE , if we want to write an fix means , then we use something like
> _height:200px;
>
> For chrome , how to write an fix , Can some one tell with few example ,
>
> Also for FF , IE-8 ,

http://www.catswhocode.com/blog/15-techniques-and-tools-for-cross-browser-css-coding
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Fix for chrome browser

[Christian Montoya]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:07 AM, bharani
kumar wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is general question ,
>
> For IE , if we want to write an fix means , then we use something like
> _height:200px;
>
> For chrome , how to write an fix , Can some one tell with few example ,
>
> Also for FF , IE-8 ,

height:200px;

Chrome, FF, IE-8 don't need to be "fixed" because their CSS2 support
is very good.

-- 
--
Christian Montoya
mappdev.com :: christianmontoya.net
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

[Rob Emenecker]

> >My question to you is why  a box of 100px equals a inch
> measured by a
> >ruler and not what I expected 96px?
> >
> Don't understand the statement.

I'll take a stab at this one... 

PPI/DPI is not an accurate measure of PHYSICAL dimensions on a monitor due
to the PHYSICAL size of the monitor. (I recall a message from a previous
poster conveyed this.) 

If I have my Win OS set to 96 dpi (that is DOTS = PIXELS; DOTS <> POINTS) on
a 1920x1200 monitor the size of a ONE INCH object will be different if that
1920x1200 monitor is a 21", 24", on 15" laptop monitor. I know this to be a
fact because I run my laptop at 1920x1200 and the diagonal measure is
approx. 15.4". I have the same resolution set on my 24" desktop monitor,
because that monitor is approx. 55% larger in  size.

On Windows, if you need it to be remotely accurate in representing PHYSICAL
SIZE, the *best case* is to use the CUSTOM DPI setting and slap a ruler up
to your monitor. But do this with a word of caution... many applications
dialog boxes, menus, and other elements that contain text, were laid out
based on the default 96 DPI. They start "breaking" once you muck with it
(which is a whole different rant in and of itself.)

...Rob

Rob Emenecker @ Hairy Dog Digital
www.hairydogdigital.com
 
Please note: Return e-mail messages are only accepted from discussion groups
that this e-mail address subscribes to. All other messages are automatically
deleted.
 

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

[Rob Emenecker]

> A point is 1/72 of an inch. Screen dpi's only purpose is to 
> translate a measurement in inches to pixels.

I also wanted to make one other point. It's been said directly and
indirectly, but maybe this explanation (and analogy) may help.

Consider looking at a road map. There is a scale on the map. It may say
something similar to "10 mm = 5 km". On a computer it is a similar
representation of scale. When you see 96 DPI, that means that there are 96
dots used to convey the visual representation of a 1-inch object at 100%
magnification. It IS NOT SAYING that it will physically measure one inch on
screen.

It can become confusing for two reasons -- at least in my mind. If you come
from a print background you are used to hearing 72 points = 1 inch. Then
there were laser printers that were 300 dots per inch, then 600 dots per
inch, and imagesetters/RIPs that worked in 1200 and 2400 dpi. In each of
those cases, the measurement, that is 1 inch, was made up of the indicated
number of dots. 

Enter computer monitors.

In the wild west days of desktop publishing, the Mac OS ran at a default of
72 dpi. This caused many people to begin to associate monitor and OS
resolutions to physical measurements, because it was the same "ratio" of 72
points to 1 inch. 

With the advent of 96 dpi as the default OS resolution setting on both Mac
and Windows, people naturally were inclined to interpret that as meaning ONE
INCH ON MY MONITOR = 96 PIXELS. No! Making matters worse, depending upon the
physical size of your monitor AND the resolution it was running, you might
find that 96 dpi was "nearly" one inch. (This is the case with 1920x1200
resolution on a 24" monitor. It is somewhere in the ballpark.) 

So with that, if you were a designer or someone involved in graphics, or
simply someone that is very anal retentive, you get frustrated about the
discrepancy when a 1" object at 100% measures 1.25 inches measured with a
ruler against the screen. But that is because you've forgotten that a
monitor's resolution is about SCALE, not the physical onscreen measure,
similar to the scale on a map. 

It's easy to get tripped up by this, because unlike a map, the scale is not
something obvious, such as 1 inch = 25 miles. It is more akin to seeing a
map scale that says, 1 inch = 1.25 inches. When you are dealing with similar
scales, as is the case with the later, it is easy to get twisted up.

I also liken it to the difference between MARK-UP and PROFIT MARGIN. A 25%
mark-up is not the same as a 25% profit margin. It's actually a 20% profit
margin. But the values are similar enough that it's easy to get them
convoluted, and both are accurate depending upon WHICH DIRECTION you view
the relationship from.

...Rob


Rob Emenecker @ Hairy Dog Digital
www.hairydogdigital.com
 
Please note: Return e-mail messages are only accepted from discussion groups
that this e-mail address subscribes to. All other messages are automatically
deleted.
 

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] OPTIONS of a select box overlapping a DIV overlay

[Mark Senff]

Hey all,

I'm well aware of the IE6-specifc problem regarding SELECT-boxes showing 
through a overlay div, and its usual fix (putting an iFrame with certain 
properties right under the overlay div), but I've just come across something 
new, related to this. Why I've never seen this before, I don't know.

Go to http://www.costumehub.com/mascot-costumes and click on any "QUICK VIEW" 
button. You'll see a overlay div popup show up, that hides the SELECT fields, 
like it obviously should. Works in IE6/7/8, Firefox, Safari, etc.

Now the problem occurs when you actually CLICK ON ANY OF THOSE SELECT BOXES -- 
even though the initial SELECT is hidden, the OPTIONS aren't. In every browser 
I've tested, this happens.

So right now I'm wondering if this is something that can actually be fixed or 
not -- I read before that select dropdowns are part of the OS pr DOM or 
whatever, that makes them hard to hide (hence the original IE6 issue). Am I 
missing something here or is this really something that can't be fixed? The 
fact that it occurs in all browsers I've tested, on both Windows and MAC, makes 
me wonder about it's fixability too (yes, I guess I just invented that word!). 
So if the answer is simply "can't overlap select box options, ever", then I'm 
happy.

A Google search for "css select option overlap div 'z-index' form" didn't 
really give me exactly the answer.

Note: yep, I know that the page won't validate, but I can't do much about that 
myself; it's the result of dozens of people working on pages like these, being 
a combination of six hundred and twenty three languages and techniques. I just 
want to fix the quickview popup hiding the options of the select boxes -- or 
have confirmation that it can't be fixed, that's my only worry for now.

Thanks for your help all,
mS



  
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] Fix for chrome browser

[bharani kumar]

Hi All,

This is general question ,

For IE , if we want to write an fix means , then we use something like
_height:200px;

For chrome , how to write an fix , Can some one tell with few example ,

Also for FF , IE-8 ,

Thanks

Bharani
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Screen resolution?

[Richard Mason]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Alan Gresley wrote

>1. The 96px and 72pt boxes are the same size with a 96 DPI setting for
>the monitor.
>
A point is 1/72 of an inch. Screen dpi's only purpose is to translate a 
measurement in inches to pixels.

pixels = inches * screen dpi

It's as simple as that. Whenever _anything_ is specified in inches for 
display on a screen then this is the equation that programmers use to 
translate inches to pixels.

(72 pts/ 72) = 1 inch
1 inch * 96 dpi = 96 pixels
http://www.emdpi.com/screendpi.html

>2. The 100px and 75pt boxes are the same size with a 96 DPI setting on a
>  monitor
(75 pt/72) * 96 = 100 px

>but also they are exactly 1 inch (using a ruler) in height and
>width.
>
Only because you have a screen physical pixel density which happens to 
give you 1 inch. They are certainly not 1 inch on my screen.
>
>3. When the DPI setting is changed to 120 DPI, the boxes using pts
>become 125% of their size at 96 DPI.
>
(75 pt/72) * 120 = 125 px
i.e. 125% of 100

>4. The boxes using pixels are the same size and the box of 100px at
>either 96 or 120 DPI still equals exactly 1 inch (using a ruler) in
>height and width.
>
Try accurately measuring inches on a CRT with a curved screen, with the 
drawing surface separated from your ruler by a thick piece of glass, to 
say nothing of getting an undistorted image after playing with the 17 
different CRT screen adjustments. Measuring inches on a screen is futile 
- and didn't suddenly become sensible because we changed from CRT to 
LCD.  A screen is not a piece paper.

>My question to you is why  a box of 100px equals a inch measured by a
>ruler and not what I expected 96px?
>
Don't understand the statement.

>BTW, I thought the higher DPI setting would make the text smaller. I now
>discover the reverse is true where the text and chrome of the browser is
>larger.
>
The equation again, which is true for all inch length measurements on a 
screen
pixels = inches * screen dpi
Increase screen dpi and you increase pixels

Also there seems to be view that screen dpi can only be 96 or 120. 
Screen dpi can be adjusted in the Control Panel by small steps between 
19 dpi and 480 dpi. The elastic ruler.
http://www.emdpi.com/screendpi.html

-- 
Richard Mason
http://www.emdpi.com
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Can't get rid of blue links

[Bobby Jack]

--- On Wed, 8/12/09, Kim Brooks Wei  wrote:

> I have some links here that are blue, but I can't figure
> out why they are this color.

Do you mean the links in your footer? They're not your specified colour because 
you're applying that colour to links in .narrowcolumn, which is separate from 
the footer.

- Bobby
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

[css-d] Can't get rid of blue links

[Kim Brooks Wei]

Good morning (or night) people,

I have some links here that are blue, but I can't figure out why they 
are this color and need help seeing what's invoking this color. I 
looked at every color but didn't find the answer. The links ought to 
be orange-whitish or green.

http://bit.ly/ObnV3

Thanks as always,
Kimi

-- 

[Kimi Wei
thewei.com | 201-475-1854 | twitter.com/kimiwei]
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] How to get window to crop image?

[Michal Suchanek]

2009/8/11 Lalena :
> Hi guys,
> I guess I could just crop the image and make it 100%, but I would be
> "settling," I think, because based on what the current version is
> doing, I'm pretty sure I would see a little of my black background on
> either side. It won't really look like it continues beyond the window
> edge.
> Chris, the header on your Neil Parish site looks like it's what I
> want on the right, but not on the left; that's what happened to me
> before--the image anchors itself to the left, and only "bleeds" off
> on the right.
> Lalena

- Hide quoted text -
I guess you want something like this:


  
  
  .myimg {width: 120% ; margin-left: -10%; margin-right: -10%}
  body {margin: 0; padding 0;}
  .content { margin: 1em }
  
  
  
  
  
   Blah blah blah ..
  
  


Of course, you will want a complete header for your page.

Setting the image size to 100% and the margins to 0 should work equally well.

HTH

Michal
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/